Air-to-Air Mooney

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,043
Display Name

Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
My friends Luke, Sarah Ann, and their son and my little buddy Edwin flew out to join us for dinner at Critter's Lodge. We were already in the air doing a photo shoot, so they joined up on us for a few shots.

31426361778_668c9e5900_b.jpg

31426358118_5d356a4810_b.jpg

30360780717_f393ff48e4_b.jpg

30360776257_b17c9db68e_b.jpg

30360777067_8c2e8db90e_b.jpg

30360771007_fbbe26fd7c_b.jpg

30360763767_ee166f582d_b.jpg
 
Nice photos but Mooney as planes are just ... ugly - everything about them screams ... state of the art design circa 1950s.
 
Nice photos but Mooney as planes are just ... ugly - everything about them screams ... state of the art design circa 1950s.

No way. I don't much care for the color scheme on that one, but the new ones look really sharp.
 
Very cool shots! But given the subject line, I feel obligated to post my favorite Mooney air-to-air shot:


That just never gets old. :rofl:
 
Nice photos but Mooney as planes are just ... ugly - everything about them screams ... state of the art design circa 1950s.
Perhaps, but that wing is a thing of beauty. Just took awhile for the rest of the airframe to catch up with it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Very cool shots! But given the subject line, I feel obligated to post my favorite Mooney air-to-air shot:


That just never gets old. :rofl:
I thought you were supposed to pass on the right??? ;) Of course I always want people to pass me on the left, too, since that's where my photo window is.
 
Nice photos but Mooney as planes are just ... ugly - everything about them screams ... state of the art design circa 1950s.
Well, it is a 1965 plane, so I’m aviation I’m guessing a state of the art design from the 50’s wasn’t so bad!
 
Nice photos but Mooney as planes are just ... ugly - everything about them screams ... state of the art design circa 1950s.
That looks to be a C model which likely puts in the 60's. So it kind of is from the 50's. They sold for a reason and looks were it.
 
It’s a C model... at least the one I took photos of is. I think you guys are talking about the one in the video.
 
an Ovation, sweet. I mean, if u can deal with 50's lookin state of the art design.

I haven't noticed too many exciting air-to-air photo spreads of those '90s state-of-the-art airplanes with the tadpole profiles and the legs sticking out. :eek:
 
Nice photos but Mooney as planes are just ... ugly - everything about them screams ... state of the art design circa 1950s.

Was there a better era for design?
Best cars: 50s and 60s
Best furniture: 50s and 60s
Best architecture: 50s and 60s
Best planes: 50s and 60s

What fantastic decades. Just sad I missed them.
 
It’s a ‘96 M20R N97ST

It's a '96 according to the FAA, but a '97 according to Mooney. They finished it a few days early and it was originally registered in December of 1996, so the FAA calls it a '96.

The tail number comes from the original owner, who owned a company called S-TEC... But not the S-TEC that makes autopilots!
 
I don't mind 50's technology, since I'm from there...
The M20C is not bad for 50's technology. In this plane, he routinely gets 130kts on about 9gph. Considering we burn about the same fuel in the 170 and go 100kts, it's not too shabby!
 
The M20C is not bad for 50's technology. In this plane, he routinely gets 130kts on about 9gph. Considering we burn about the same fuel in the 170 and go 100kts, it's not too shabby!

I'm sorry, Jack, that your friend has a slow Mooney. My M20-C routinely gets 145-147 KTAS around 8000 msl or higher. :D Still 9 gph block time, too.
 
I'm sorry, Jack, that your friend has a slow Mooney. My M20-C routinely gets 145-147 KTAS around 8000 msl or higher. :D Still 9 gph block time, too.
I should have said 135, but still slower than yours!
 
I'm sorry, Jack, that your friend has a slow Mooney. My M20-C routinely gets 145-147 KTAS around 8000 msl or higher. :D Still 9 gph block time, too.

I should have said 135, but still slower than yours!

so Hank, if you're down low and doing photo shoots or just cruising along at 2500-3000', are u firewall'd and cruising 145 or with 65%-75% powersettings are you doing 130-125 on 9gphish?
 
so Hank, if you're down low and doing photo shoots or just cruising along at 2500-3000', are u firewall'd and cruising 145 or with 65%-75% powersettings are you doing 130-125 on 9gphish?

At that altitude, I generally run 23"/2300, which should be ~65%.

Even up high I run MP + RPM = 46, also around 65%. (That's the Key Number for our engines, just add the numbers under the needles. Good speed, good economy and nice to the engine per the two MAPA PPPs I've attended.) Fuel flow is what it is, I can only calculate it at the fuel pump. I used to indicate ~140 mph low and 130-135 mph high, then I resurrected my doghouse and carb heat box and now indicate 145-150 mph low and 140-145 high.
 
At that altitude, I generally run 23"/2300, which should be ~65%.

Even up high I run MP + RPM = 46, also around 65%. (That's the Key Number for our engines, just add the numbers under the needles. Good speed, good economy and nice to the engine per the two MAPA PPPs I've attended.) Fuel flow is what it is, I can only calculate it at the fuel pump. I used to indicate ~140 mph low and 130-135 mph high, then I resurrected my doghouse and carb heat box and now indicate 145-150 mph low and 140-145 high.

MPH or Knts?
 
Even up high I run MP + RPM = 46, also around 65%. (That's the Key Number for our engines, just add the numbers under the needles. Good speed, good economy and nice to the engine per the two MAPA PPPs I've attended.)
I first heard about that rule of thumb when my C-172N got its 180 hp conversion. Despite a fixed-pitch prop, we have a manifold pressure gauge, and this system makes for easy cruise power management regardless of altitude. I didn't know it was a "thing" in the Mooney world.

Power.jpg
 
At 3000 msl, 150 mph + 6% = 138 KTAS.

At 8000 msl, 145 mph + 16% = 146 KTAS.

Read my post, "mph" occurs three times . . . . ;)

Well your first post said you got 145 ktas and your second post said you got 145 mph. Just looking for clarification.;)
 
Well your first post said you got 145 ktas and your second post said you got 145 mph. Just looking for clarification.;)

Correct, first post was 145 KTAS. Second post was indicated airspeed, and in 1970 that was mph (and ia aboit 145-147 KTAS). Thought people learned the +2% per thousand feet thing like my primary CFI taught me. Doing it in my head while flying keeps me sharp and on my toes, and gives me something to compare my groundspeed in knots against to doublecheck the winds aloft . . . .
 
Back
Top